he Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission and the Centre seeking responses in a week on a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel led by CEC Gyanesh Kumar took decisions allegedly without the approval of two Election Commissioners
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission and the Centre seeking responses in a week on a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel led by CEC Gyanesh Kumar took decisions allegedly without the approval of two Election Commissioners.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vikas Singh and issued the notice.
The bench said the decisions of the Election Commission have to be either unanimous or by majority and that it presumed that this is how all decisions were taken.
The PIL, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, urged the top court to determine whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission (EC) as a whole, and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.
"Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India," the plea stated.
The Indian Express had reported on September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
Under fire over the red flags raised by two of its commissioners, the EC asserted that differing views and observations were a normal part of deliberations in any institution and that all its orders carried full legal sanction and followed established statutory procedures.